Don't know what to make of it actually. Saw that you have posted your ideas in your own thread here at 'New Theories' though? Why not try to submit it to arXiv.org instead and see how they respond? They might give you a better response to why, and what, they think, any which way it goes?=

Ah well :)Had to correct my wording here. =

Ok, reading your link I think your ideas clash with my interpretation of the physics I know? I seriously suggest that you try to avoid too many new 'labels' (as they only becomes confusing when trying to remember) instead concentrating on the math, to then present your work to arXiv.org. They have good access to mathematicians & physicists there. Hopefully they will give your work their attention, and before all explain where they differ from your interpretations.

"The energy-momentum tensor is calculated in the two dimensional quantum theory of a massless scalar field influenced by the motion of a perfectly reflecting boundary (mirror). This simple model system evidently can provide insight into more sophisticated processes, such as particle production in cosmological models and exploding black holes. In spite of the conformally static nature of the problem, the vacuum expectation value of the tensor for an arbitrary mirror trajectory exhibits a non-vanishing radiation flux (which may be readily computed).

The expectation value of the instantaneous energy flux is negative when the proper acceleration of the mirror is increasing, but the total energy radiated during a bounded mirror motion is positive. A uniformly accelerating mirror does not radiate; however, our quantization does not coincide with the treatment of that system as a 'static universe'. The calculation of the expectation value requires a regularization procedure of covariant separation of points (in products of field operators) along time-like geodesics; more naive methods do not yield the same answers. A striking example involving two mirrors clarifies the significance of the conformal anomaly. "

It's about if a uniform motion matter, ahem? And, it doesn't, not for the static, neither for the dynamical, Casimir effect.

What does it tell you? Where is the energy in a 'uniform motion', according to your measurements of some other object, you finding it close to 'lights speed in a vacuum'? And if measuring your own uniform 'speed' then, relative very distant stars blue shift in front of your motion? Where is the energy?

So, does mass as in matter 'accelerate'? Imagine yourself on a neutron star watching distant star light. Would that light become blue shifted to you? If it does, what type of 'acceleration' is it? A uniform acceleration (for example at a million G) or a 'jerky' non uniform acceleration? If we use the Casimir effect we find that in a uniform acceleration you will not see this 'energy' created out of the vacuum, in form of light/radiation. So?

Here's a nice lecture on GR, although I withhold on the notion that Einstein wanted/expected it all to become a geometry. To me it seems as if the geometry of it was a later approach to GR, by many, making it possible to visualize the ideas better.

And what the he* has all this to do with an 'aether'?

Well, if you use frames of reference, then a acceleration is the only 'thing' being measurable 'intrinsically/very :) locally'. But what about on very small scales? If I assume that there are 'SpaceTime corns' (so corny) that together create what we call our universe, each one representing a smallest 'something/block/point'. Would they too 'feel' a acceleration 'intrinsically'? And if they do, how do they differ between uniform/non uniform accelerations?

But it's not what I'm wondering about firstly, what I'm wondering about is how the stress energy tensor define uniformly moving objects 'energy', and where it would 'place it'? Also how it would differ between 'real proper mass/matter', relative a uniform acceleration, relative a non-uniform acceleration?

The point is that in a uniform motion, no matter your speed, as measured relative some other frame of reference, it doesn't seem to matter at all what 'energy' you define your 'motion' to have. It will always be relative another frame of reference, and only measurable in a collision. Locally it is non existent.==

To me this is a important point supporting a idea of each frame of reference locally creating its own interpretation of a 'universe', contrasting that from the idea of a same 'indivisibly same, common universe, for us all'. And it is important, because that is the ground from where you need to start, as it seems to me.

Expressed other wise you may state that all objects have one constant 'energy', from a photon to a particle of 'rest mass'. The rest, as they say, is all about relations. But, does this statement break down in accelerations?==

Once more leaning on the Casimir effect, how do the universe know that the acceleration is non uniform. It must know, or else, whatever is accelerating must 'know' a difference. To be able to produce those 'photons' in one case, but not if uniform accelerating. And so the question comes back to what those possible smallest 'points/blocks/whatever' would mean in such a reasoning?

You might put that question as 'can there exist effects that is truly only intrinsically measurable? Or is it all about relations?' ==

And by the way :) That one could also be seen as about a 'modern aether'. Because if it is a relation, then to what? And where? And why does it differ?

As always, this is thoughts, nothing more. But the idea of lights speed being traceable to the arrow, and the arrow to lights speed (constant) in a vacuum is getting really stuck in me head, and bothers me in some weird way. I've started to wonder why it is that way? If it now is :)

Both are locally equivalent as I think. Your arrow and lights speed.Why?

It's about this weird plasticity relativity describes. The one in where all your measurements of a room time 'geometry' adapt to mass, relative motion, accelerations and 'energy'. And the arrow of time?

Locally the same in all environments the arrow. All dimensions go together, some change locally though as your 'distances' measured but your time and the light constant both stays locally 'the same', giving you a locally exact same 'life span', There are no longer hours due to relativistic speeds. All of that is related to you measuring other frames of reference but has no effect on your lifespan locally.

If it is so that we can prove photons being 'created' in a vacuum due to the dynamical Casimir effect then we also should be able to settle the question if the original Casimir effect is due to the material or due to the 'zero point energy', right? Then the idea of 'energy' becomes something in its own right, and should be present in all 'space', shouldn't it? The same way as a expansion, to make sense (to me that is), should be present inside galaxies too, but unmeasurable there due to gravity keeping matters relations/orbits stable, well as I think of it?

And then those photons created is a 'symmetry break' of sorts, isn't it? The idea is that you have a pair production of 'virtual photons' in where you one way or another stop them from annihilating each other, and that seems to be breaking a symmetry to me?

Let us assume that every point of a universe has the same 'energy'. To that energy you then can add matter, relative motion (as in when uniformly moving aka 'unmovable':), and accelerations.

So when that squid mirror moves forth and back it is in motion, and it should be a accelerating one at each turn at least. That means to whatever points it pass in those turns it also should transfer a added energy, due to that acceleration, am I thinking right there? I have no idea if you can find it to be uniformly accelerating and subsequently, possibly, also uniformly moving at some instant, but each turns is guaranteed representing a non uniform acceleration. And that added 'energy' should then be what is transfered into the one photon that survives, if we want the conservation laws to stand, all as i get it.

If that is right then there is one 'layer' of energy, one 'layer' of non uniform acceleration, and matter. The 'layer' of energy should then be whatever exist in those SpaceTime points making a universe. Those points must then be in relation to accelerations and matter, all accelerations? or just non-uniform? Could a 'photon' bouncing in a cavity create new photons? If it bounce it can't be described as propagating uniformly any more, as long as we assume a 'elastic' bounce, right?

You have to remember that this is my views, and I'm no scientist :)But...

Anyway, for what it's worth. Locality is like a carpet. Imagine that carpet consisting of searchlights, each one finding a different representation of 'a universe'. Then consider that all searchlights, when in the 'same frame of reference', will find themselves 'identical', meaning that their 'frames' are equivalent.

Consider that.

Then ask yourself what is needed for a identical 'carpet', to create a 'observer dependency'`?

Then we have the question about predestination contra free will. Imagine a moving sheet. That sheet light up its own plane, maybe limited to some Planck size. What it light up as it 'passes through' is a static reality, non moving. But the sheet, and what we perceive as happening 'consciously' in that planar field, as the sheet move might then represent a interpretation of 'time passing', and with it our description of 'motion'. This is a purely predestined field though as what it light up isn't really moving at all, except to us living, constantly existing on and in that surface.

But then you have free will, the possibility of making choices. If that exist, and I think it does as I do such daily, then that idea does not capture 'time'.

Ok, this one is confusing too me. Imagine a photon propagating at 'c'. What does it see? Flr, a guy writing here asked that one first I think? Then I thought of it as creating contradictions and therefore impossible to answer. But I just meet a guy suggesting that what a photon might see could be a two dimensional universe, me assuming he is thinking of a Lorentz contraction in the motion of the propagation. and so maybe Flr is right?

But I though like this.

1. photons are timeless (as far as physics know experimentally)

2. Lorentz contraction as observed in the direction of motion should in the case of a photon reach? Infinite contraction, or is there a limit where you can assume a point (plane) like existence?

3. What would happen to a signal from a relativistically moving object, sent in the opposite direction from its motion? It would redshift (waves), and in the case of a photon? Would it warp?

And the redshift itself then, is there a limit to how red shifted something can become relative the moving observer?

I could assume that there must be a limit, as I can imagine a stationary (inertial) observer able to watch that ships signal, but I’m not sure, although it seems a contradiction in terms.

If there are no limits to a redshift, what would that imply in the case of those two observers?

And that one is a crucial point to me, what would that mean? You have two observers who both agree on that there is no 'photon' propagating, and no measurement that can prove it otherwise. But you still have the recoil from the moving object as it let the 'photon' go which can be considered a indirect proof.

Then again.

The redshift produced by the motion as observed from the moving object must still be at ‘c’.

And the stationary observer should see it redshifted too, and at ‘c’ from his point of view too.(This is assuming a reciprocal effect relative ‘c’ (motion), different coordinate systems, and energy.)

Think of it a rope undulating, it doesn't matter which of the ends of the rope is traveling/stretched relative the other (in a uniform motion) The view from both ends will show the same (wave) picture as the rope gets stretched out

But then you have the light quanta itself, that won’t change intrinsically?

Will that light quanta cease to exist? Can it?And what the he* is motion?

Defining it from a principle of measurements defining your reality and 'locality', it seems to me as the lightquanta is gone. so is there a frame of reference from where you would be able to see it? Of course there is, coexisting frames I think they're called? Or slightly displaced frames like when traveling at a slightly less speed behind the object sending out the light quanta, they must see it.

But, from a 'globally same universe' then? How would you define that? Locally what you measure is what you get, and it is what will define your experiments, and life, but from a theoretically 'same indivisible' universe?

Assume that what you see is your representation of a fractured/splintered universe, each representation of that universe coming from a 'local center' of some sort? Is that feasible? Where would that center be, and how does it become one?

Quantum physics see a difference between quantum effects and macroscopic expressions/effects, and puts it to the amount, many particles together interacting, becoming matter. If there now was a center of some sort, would that be due to a similar effect? Then you have those relativistic effects due to mass, relative motion, accelerations and spin, gravitational time dilations etc. where do they stop? Do they stop? Is all particles also members of those effects?

How can they interact if they are?The force carriers are photons, right?

So assuming such a universe you get a place consisting of a possibly (?) infinite amount of centers, just as you by changing your 'limits/definitions' for a equation can find different effects, as light becoming 'mass'. Change what you define as making up that 'center' and you get a different 'local' interpretation of your universe. Would that make sense? Is light a constant? Can you disprove it? You can argue that it will take different time in a acceleration and so have a different speed, but a acceleration is a gravity according to the equivalence principle, and gravity 'bends warps' SpaceTime.

I don't know what speed 'c' is, but I'm pretty sure it must be a constant.The clock of the universe. on, off, on, off.

And the definition of a arrow.And the force carrier.=

There must be more degrees of freedom than those we can measure, to make this work.At least I think there must be.=

And no, if we go by measurements then there is always only one 'center', redefining what makes it won't change your measurements. But what measures? The observer right? And when particles interact then, do they 'measure' each other? And doesn't that make them 'observers' too?

It becomes a sort of fractal, doesn't it? All those 'centers'? A 'center' in a 'center' in a 'center' in a **, add infinitum. What can confuse one thinking of it, is the fact that each measurement done is a 'outcome'. And the only ones we normally connect to measurements are ourselves. Conscious beings deciding and going through with a measurement, presenting us with a outcome. But if you look at it a little differently then all interactions and outcomes is the result of 'observers measuring' each other. and the proof of that is the 'outcomes'.

But I don't think that is the best way to see it, to me it seems better to look at what the smallest 'bit' of a center can be. That makes it easier to test, than to consider all combinations of a infinite connection of 'centers', depending on definition, coexisting.=

Can one photon present us with a 'gravity/mass'?Not as I know. It's many photon 'interactions' creating it, theoretically. Energy is expressions from transformations.

If we now assumed that photons under some restriction could present us with a rest mass, and if we assume a constant propagation since the Big Bang, and if we assume a expansion. Why don't we notice it change, the gravity? Because it is assumed to take itself out 'globally'? But even so we could assume 'patches' of space where the gravity might fluctuate, due to a uneven proportionality of directions of propagating light quanta. And what more is true? Change your coordinate system, and you will change gravity. But that is inertially measuring relative comoving with the preferred direction of gravity, isn't it? But the one about light quanta becomes extremely tricky to test I think.

But it is also so that a expansion must present us with a weaker gravity, the further away galaxies etc, becomes from each other. Although locally the same? That can't be true if gravity's reach is infinite.

And when it comes to gravity the view from locality, and measurements, state that what you measure is what you get. So changing your coordinate system is changing your reality. That, I think, was Einsteins take on it too.=

Does a photon take up 'space'?Not as I know.

A particle present us with both mass and gravity though.=

But if you heat particles up they gains 'energy' and so a bigger rest mass, and that is testable. What about a sun? How much of its gravity is due to heat? The sum of its particles in a cold state would present us with what gravity?

If you could 'stop' the sun for a moment, the total sum of its mass should be the same in a cold as in a heated state (counting in the heat), if I'm thinking right? The energy it spends is internally produced, and what is produced as 'heat' is in fact mass being transformed into 'energy' (photons/waves). If we now define it so that photons under certain circumstances can present us with a rest mass, and so a gravity, where does gravity disappear as a sun 'burns up'? In the directionality of the photons?

That depends on where you live. There are several way to define it. Earth is big, you can draw a straight line on a paper and all you ask will call that line straight. But if you drew it between Canberra in Australia to let's say New York then. Would it still be a straight line? If you use the original paper to compare the line there with the one on the ground you would probably call it straight, but imagine being on the moon looking 'down' at earth studying that line. Does it curve? Can a curve be a straight line?

Space is curved (warped), but, space isn't there? Space is a classical negation of matter. Where matter isn't, is space. How can something not existing be curved? Turn that around, what makes you think that you can define any form to something not existing? Yeah, one way, experiments. And according to them, space is curved. how do you define a curvature then? You use world lines, and where they get together you find a center. All mass becomes a center, even though the curvature, or different world lines, not always meet in the perfect middle of that mass. It's also called geodesics, the paths of least resistance as I sometimes think of it, Alternatively the paths costing the least energy to traverse (free fall).

So what is a straight line? Why not define it as the path that costs the least energy? And if you use that definition you just should need to measure the path taken in a free fall to see what geometry defining that 'straight path'.

But a point like particle, can it exist? A particle taking so little, or none, place? If we can't measure it? How can it exist? again it becomes a matter of from where you stand looking at it. From close up it exist, from infinitely far away it disappear. So is that the definition? But if they take up no space at all, where is the place where they do 'take place'? they are also called 'bosons', but as we know already some 'bosons' do take a place whereas other, as photons, are able to exist super imposed upon each other, and still take no more place. you can in fact collect all photons there is, put them in one 'point' and still they won't take a place. We can verify that they exist due to the energy and momentum they express when interacting with matter, but that's the only time, and place, where we can verify a photon experimentally.

The recoil matter shows as a photon leaves does not let us see the photon, if we tried to measure it we would annihilate it at that same time. As there is a symmetry to the recoil and the annihilation, and as we know of motion from our observations of matter inside a space it becomes natural to connect the recoil we measure to the annihilation, and expect the same to be valid for photons, as we observe for matter moving inside a space.

But if we have more degrees of freedom existing then? Than those we know how to measure?

Consider it from the ideas Einstein presented, and use 'locality'. Also look at what is measurable. If you accept that 'c' is a constant, no matter how you move relative the light speed measured. If you accept the equivalence principle between accelerations and gravity, not as a apparent 'gravity', but accept what the experiments tell you inside that black box. Then you have as much indirect evidence for us needing more degrees of freedom, as you have for the idea of propagation of photons, as I see it, or more.

The problem is defining what those degrees are. We have defined it as three 'space like' degrees of freedom with one 'time like' degree of freedom, having a 'arrow of time' pointing one way. And that is the only way it points experimentally as I know.

It becomes a really crazy universe if you want to keep it 'indivisibly same' for us all, at the same time you find that each observer can be seen as having their own 'clock', and their own 'ruler' to measure all other 'frames of reference' with. I see no way to connect those, except by 'c'. Using a Lorentz transformation just tell you there is a equilibrium/symmetry to it. That i can translate my 'time and ruler' to yours, and yours to mine.

But using locality as your guide you find that if frames of reference becomes, let's call it 'super imposed', the 'time' and the ruler are equivalent. Exactly the same. Doesn't matter where you do that measurement as long as you share a same 'frame of reference'. And that is interesting, but there is a problem with it.

How large can a 'frame of reference' ideally be? And is there a limit to it? That's why I call it 'super imposing'.

Super imposing because that must be the ideal definition of something sharing that exact same 'center', or local 'frame of reference'. Everything is in different motion, isn't it so. You can take two objects and define either one to be still. relative the other being in motion, assuming uniform motion here. Can you do the same with three uniformly moving objects, ten, a thousand? Of course you can, we do it each time we go out at night to look at the stars. They move, not us. But they're all in different motions relative each other, even though uniform all of them. From that we see that there is motion, not only relative but real differences in 'speed'. And we call that motion. What about light then? Also in motion you say, but with a difference, always at 'c', no matter your 'relative motion' except in a acceleration, which according to my way of looking at it also is a gravity.

What if light doesn't propagate?

Or expressed differently, what would be needed for a universe, such as ours, to have motion if the starting premise is that light is a 'static phenomena'. How would you define motion then, from what premises.

That one is terribly weird, as what we're taking about is what we define as 'force carriers'. but it's about time too, or more specifically about its arrow. But it doesn't explain anything really. And it's not that I doubt 'motion' per se, it's just that I don't know what it is. If you move in this universe really fast, then the universe contracts.

And that is your reality. Move close to the speed of light, expending energy in a acceleration. Then stop accelerate..You now stopped spending energy, but your universe must keep its contraction relative your 'uniform motion'. And the 'new' distance you measure is the real one, for you.

Someone at another 'speed' relative yours will also find you time dilated. as well as finding another distance than yours, assuming you both travel in the same direction measuring the same way approximately. And it becomes two different universes. One that is his, one that is yours. And what changed due to your speed is not one thing, but the whole SpaceTime you measure. But as far as you can measure you're the exact same at that speed as you were at any other, and all experiments you do will give the same result, assuming uniform motion.

You might think of it this way, accelerate a particle as close to light speed that is humanly possible. What happens to its room, will it shrink? Assume it to accelerate a little more, will the room it define itself in shrink even more? Is there a limit to that? At what point is the 'future', as in the distance measured before your motion, that you might have left to travel in, in your face :) No room to move.

And there is a even more interesting view you can make. If 'c' is a constant then it is a constant in your body too, as the 'force carriers', connecting particles, all are photons, as far as I understand. Exchange the particle above to yourself, assume yourself to now be in that situation that there is very little, to no, room for you left to move in, due to your overall relativistic speed. What happens to the force carries inside your body? Have they accelerated too? The geometry you find is changed, although you no longer expend energy, but everything is the same with you as before. As you now are in a uniform motion again. If it weren't so then we would be able to differ between uniform motions, if enclosed in that black box, without tidal references to track. But it is a premise we make there, that all uniform motions are the exact same, and so far it works experimentally. Everything moves at 'c', your body's photons, the ships photons, the photons creating the acceleration, the universe's photons too. All those are measurable, by anyone interested, to move at 'c' at all times. Doesn't matter what you do, speed up or not. So there you are, no forward room left to move in, and at no time did any changed 'speed' really happen, when it comes to you measuring photons, inside as well as outside yourself. Energy levels may change relative your measurement, but not the speed of those photons. So what 'speeds' in that motion?

That is a theoretical, and what I think of as, 'static' frame. The 'photon frame' if I may, in where they are a constant, to all observers measuring them. And that frame seems to me more of a 'global' reality than us referring to a same distance, or clock beat, as a proof of a indivisible universe.

But using that idea we meet another universe than the one described by matter and space. Photons have no size, photons can be superimposed, photons don't exist until measured. The universe as a 'field' with 'excitations'? Then we too are 'excitations' in it, as we use force carriers to communicate between particles of rest mass (matter).

Matter is so weird. And, to me, the weirdest thing about it is its constituents, and spin. Spin is not anything rotating, instead it is something that somehow reminds us of rotating, without doing it. If I now assumed some proportionality in scale to photons, quarks, particles, and reasoned such as, it is when you add them up you get new effects, or 'emergences'?

Yeah, I really enjoy the simpler things in life:)At the very least I like to simplify.

Then we have one timeless 'degree of freedom' aka 'dimension' that then would consist of photons/'bosons' that we then due to 'interactions' scale up to quarks, gluon's, particles and finally matter. And through the scaling up you get new emergences as temperatures, and, what more? Everything we measure?

How would a 'photonic dimension' behave if one assumed it?

Can you say it has a arrow? And what would a 'being' immersed in that think of our SpaceTime? A illusion, right :)One thing is sure, we exist through outcomes.

The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors
and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators,
sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.